The problem with these sort of papers is that we find a "the new smallest dividend" of the universe every other day. You can't make an accurate estimation of something you do not know, only guesses. Not to say that "guesses" haven't taken us to the moon, on the contrary, but it gives another perspective on affirmations made such as the one in this paper's title.
I disagree. A proper mathematical formulation can imply a final "smallest dividend," presuming it accounts for observable behaviors. For example, I don't believe we have experimental evidence of, say, the Plank Length, but we are aware of its supposed existence.
In other words, mathematically rigorous physics can imply results far more certainly than loose logical "guessing."
I'm not going to purchase the PDF, but this sounds problematic already:
> More precisely, I will claim that 1) according to quantum field theory, the most fundamental objects of matter are quantum fields and not particles, and show that 2) according to the Standard Model, quantum fields have intrinsic non-relational properties.
That only works as an answer to the larger question at hand (whether the "structure of physical reality is genuinely relational" or not), if we accept another philosophical claim implicit in the argument's structure: that mathematical abstractions (e.g. quantum fields) are potentially interchangeable with reality itself, rather than just descriptions.
If you instead hold that any abstraction is just a description, and not literally a building block of reality, than this only tells us whether the structure of a physical theory is 'genuinely relational'—not whether physical reality is.
@kjulian, please don't lower the level of intellectual debate on HN by asserting the arbitrary limits of human intelligence. You remind me of a lying Cretan. St. Aquinas had more rigor! Look at the proof of the existence of God by efficient causation! When it comes to Standard Model, we need to address the particulars of the model. Your accusing hands are the ones waving furiously in their accusation of handwavingness. This is the first ad hominem argument I've seen today, and it is egregious. How could you possibly judge a project on the basis of the fact that a bunch of code is out there purporting to solve the same problem at some poorly defined level of abstraction, yet not actually solving the problem at hand permanently and forever? Would you look at the code, or accuse the handwaving programmer of being nothing but an astrologer? No!!
The real problem here is the paywall - where the devil is Aaron Schwartz?
